Protest of Brand Name or Equal Solicitation

A firm protested several listed salient characteristics included in a brand name or equal solicitation for electronic equipment issued by the Army. The protester complained that the Army listing of the characteristics attributable to the incumbent contractor's brand name equipment unduly restricted competition. The Army specified the characteristics of this equipment because it provided features which would not require substitution of parts while the equipment was in use. Use of noncompatible equipment would have made it necessary for the Army to convert or reproduce its extensive magnetic tape library. Procurement statutes require that contracting activities make every reasonable effort to draft specifications which permit the broadest field of competition consistent with the Government's needs. When, as in this case, contracting officials have established an apparently sufficient and rational basis for demanding disputed specifications, the burden of proof is on the protester to show that the Government's insistence on them is clearly unreasonable. GAO believed that the Army presented a rational basis for the disputed requirements, and that the protester did not meet the burden of proof. Therefore, the protest was denied.